1661-1662
HOSTILITIES AND LOSSES
MONTREAL THE THEATRE OF IROQUOIS CARNAGE--THE FIRST SULPICIAN
SLAUGHTERED, M. LE MAITRE--THE SECOND, M. VIGNAL--THE FIRST
VISIT OF LAVAL TO MONTREAL--THE ABBE DE QUEYLUS AGAIN
APPEARS--ECCLESIASTICAL DISPUTES LEGAL, NOT PERSONAL--THE DEATH OF
LAMBERT CLOSSE--THE EXPLOIT OF PICOTE DE BELESTRE--MAISONNEUVE'S
ORDINANCE AGAINST SALE OF LIQUOR TO INDIANS--INDIAN ORGIES
AND BLOODSHED--THE GOVERNOR GENERAL AT QUEBEC DISAPPROVES OF
MAISONNEUVE'S ACTION--THE FAMOUS LIQUOR TRAFFIC DISPUTES--JEANNE
MANCE LEAVES FOR FRANCE.
The year 1661 saw the renewal of hostilities of the Iroquois from
Montreal to Cape Tourment, "but," says Marie de l'Incarnation writing
in September of this year, "Montreal has been the principal theatre of
their carnage."
On February 25th a party of Montrealers were going to work in the
fields unarmed, not fearing any ill, since there was usually no fear
of Iroquois attacks at this early season, when suddenly they found
themselves surrounded by sixty of their foes. There was only one weapon
among them and that a small pistol borne by Charles Le Moyne, and,
unable to defend themselves with their tools, they sought safety in
flight to the town, but not without thirteen being captured.
On March 24th 200 Iroquois fell upon a body of Montrealers and captured
ten. Had they not been now armed the numbers would have been more.
The "Relation" of this year, speaking of these losses says: "After
the capture of the thirteen in the month of February, ten others fell
into the same captivity. Then later more, and still more, in such sort
that, during the whole summer this island was constantly harassed by
these goblin imps who sometimes appeared on the outskirts of the woods,
contenting themselves with hurling insults at us; sometimes they glided
stealthily into the midst of the field, to fall upon the workmen by
surprise; sometimes they drew near our houses, ceaselessly annoying us,
and like unfortunate harpies or evil birds of prey, would swoop down on
us unawares."
Of the ten captured in March four were butchered in the neighbouring
woods; their bodies, brutally dismembered, hacked and burned, were
discovered by the dogs of the town, who came back each day glutted with
blood. This led to their being followed to their foul feasting place.
"Such disasters made the people turn their thoughts to eternity," says
the pious Dollier de Casson. "Vice was then almost unknown at Ville
Marie, and in the time of war, religion flourished there on all sides
in quite a different manner than it does today, in that of peace."
Three Rivers and Quebec suffered similarly. Near Quebec the sénéchal
of New France, M. Jean de Lauson, son of the former governor, fell a
victim on June 22nd. On this same day a picturesque scene occurred at
Montreal, when two canoes of Iroquois arrived under the protection of a
white flag of peace, and bringing with them four French prisoners. It
was an embassy of the two nations Onondaga and Oi8guere, who professed
to be neutral. They parleyed offering the release of the four prisoners
and twenty others at Onondaga; requesting that hospital sisters such
as those at Quebec should be sent them, and insisting as the main
condition of the release that a black robe be sent. M. Maisonneuve
sent this proposal on to Quebec with the result that Father Le Moyne,
the Jesuit, was deputed to accompany the ambassadors to Onondaga. On
the arrival of Father Le Moyne at Montreal the four Frenchmen were
exchanged for the eight Iroquois prisoners held, for a year past, in
Montreal.
After their departure other Iroquois onslaughts resulted in the death
of Jean Valets, at Point St. Charles, on August 14th, of the Sulpician
M. Lemaître, and that of Gabriel de Rée with him on August 29th, near
St. Gabriel's fortified farmhouse. M. Lemaître was saying his breviary
in the fields and acting as a lookout, somewhat apart from the fourteen
or fifteen workmen, when he suddenly came across an ambush of sixty
Iroquois. Seizing a cutlass and facing the savage crew, he called
out to the workers to hurry with their arms. He was now shot by the
Iroquois and running towards his friends he dropped down dead. These
managed to make their way to the farmhouse but left one man, Gabriel
de Rée, dead on the field. The Iroquois cut off the heads of each, and
one of them, a Christian renegade, put on the dead priest's soutane,
and wearing a shirt over it for a surplice, went stalking around the
body in mockery of the Christian burial service. The early memoirs of
this event further tell that the head of the murdered priest had spoken
after being severed from the body, and that when it had been carried
away in a white handkerchief, probably taken from the pockets of his
soutane, the features of the dead man became perfectly imprinted upon
it. This handkerchief had been seen in the camp by a French prisoner,
Lavigne, who tried in vain to obtain possession of it for, recognizing
the features of the dead priest, he had learned of his massacre. This
story he told to Dollier de Casson, who records it in his "Histoire de
Montréal."
Meanwhile the party that had taken Father Le Moyne to Onondaga with
the promise of leading back the twenty French prisoners in forty days
had not returned, and great fear was entertained at Montreal for
their safety. On October 5th, however, nine were brought back by the
intercession of the friendly chief named Garacontié, the rest having
been kept behind with Father Le Moyne during the coming winter.
On October 25th another disaster occurred in the little island à la
Pierre, above St. Helen's Island,[88] whither a party had gone the
day before to quarry stone for the new seminary, for up to this the
Sulpicians still dwelt in the Hôtel-Dieu. Along with the party, joining
them on the second day, was M. Lemaître's successor as "economus;"
another Sulpician priest, M. Vignal, who went to supervise the work.
Hardly had the party in the first boat, in which was M. Vignal, put
foot to land, when they fell into an ambuscade, and M. Vignal was
pierced with a sword, along with Sieur de Brigeac, a young soldier
of thirty years of age; M. Maisonneuve's private secretary, René
Cuillérier, and Jacques Dufresne. M. Vignal was thrown in the enemy's
canoes and taken to La Prairie de la Madeleine, facing Montreal. The
rest of the French escaped, except Jean Baptiste Moyen, who was left
mortally wounded.
After two days they put the priest to death, roasted his body on a
funeral pyre and ate it. His bones were never found. This death gave
great grief at Montreal as well as Quebec, for M. Vignal it will be
remembered had been the chaplain of the Hospitalières there.
After this cruel and horrible repast the party broke up; the Mohawks
took Jacques Dufresne with them, while the Oneidas led away the Sieur
de Brigeac and René Cuillérier. Both of these were condemned to be
burned and de Brigeac, after being horribly mutilated and slowly
burned, succumbed after twenty-four hours' torture, "praying," as the
Historian de Casson relates, "for the conversion of his tormentors
without uttering a cry of complaint."
The same fate awaited Cuillérier, but he had an intercessor in the
person of the sister of the chief, who wished to adopt him as her
brother. Eventually he escaped to the Dutch at Fort Orange, and he
finally made his way back to Montreal in the following year.
During the summer the Vicar Apostolic, Mgr. Laval, made his first visit
to Montreal. He was received with honour on the evening of August 21st.
On this occasion he showed great solicitude for the Hospitalières of
the Hôtel-Dieu, who, by the failure of M. Dauversière, now become a
bankrupt, had lost the funds entrusted to him, and had nothing to live
on, unless the one thousand _livres_' income, granted to the Company
of Montreal by Madame de Bullion for the support of a hospital, was
transferred to them. They were now thinking of going back to France,
but Mgr. Laval arranged, on the request of the inhabitants of Montreal,
that the income of the hospital could support them.
At the same time Montreal was visited again by the Abbé de Queylus. He
arrived at Quebec, incognito, on the third day of August. Since his
absence he had not been idle in pushing the ecclesiastical position
of Montreal, for on calling on the vicar apostolic, he astonished him
by communicating to him the results of his visit to Rome, viz., the
apostolic Bull of the Dateria, creating Montreal into an independent
parish, and a mandate from the archbishop of Rouen charging the
bishop of Petrea to preside at the installation of M. de Queylus as
the canonical "parochus." Finally the vicar general reminded M. de
Queylus of the _lettre de cachet_ of February 27, 1660, forbidding
his return. Queylus retorted by quoting a contradictory "_lettre de
cachet_" annulling it. The vicar general refused to accept the Bull of
the Dateria on the ground that it was obtained surreptitiously, and he
cancelled the jurisdiction of Rouen as incompatible with his own as
vicar apostolic. On August 4th he forbade Queylus to go to Montreal
under penalty of disobedience. This he communicated to d'Argenson,
but the night of the 5th or 6th of August saw de Queylus making for
Montreal furtively by canoe, with no obstacle placed in his way by the
sympathetic governor. M. de Queylus had large landed property interests
in Montreal, in fact he was one of the largest proprietors and one
of its chief mainstays. It was therefore argued that he could not, as
a private individual, be stayed from attending to his business there.
On the 6th, Laval issued the ecclesiastical suspension of de Queylus
unless he returned to Quebec. Meanwhile the abbé remained at Montreal
and no doubt received Laval on his official visit of August 21st,
already mentioned. On August 29th he grieved with his brethren over
the massacre of his fellow Sulpician, M. Lemaître, and he performed
several important business transactions as "Superior of Ecclesiastics
Associated for the Conversion of the Savages."
In the meantime Laval had written to Rome exposing his case. He
looked upon the peculiar pretensions for ecclesiastical monopoly of
Montreal and the presence of Queylus, as injurious to the interests
of the church in Canada, as menacing its unity and fostering schism.
Accordingly prevailing in this view, his protests brought letters
demanding the return to France of M. de Queylus, which took place
October 22d, from Quebec, the new Governor d'Avaugour being intrusted
with its execution.
It is well to avoid reading into these ecclesiastical disputes personal
hostility or the clash of rancour among high placed churchmen. Each
would have fought, lawyer-like, on principle, for a case of canonical
jurisdiction not yet settled in the ecclesiastical courts, owing to the
doubt remaining as to the validity of the overlordship of Rouen and
the acquiescence of Rome in its pretensions. Law at that time seems
also to have been unsatisfactorily managed, and the facility with which
"lettres de cachet" were sent to and fro, countermanding one another,
did not tend to simplify matters, as we have seen.
Add to these the difficulties inherent in the foundation of a young
French colony and the inevitable struggles for precedence and "locus
standi," especially among representatives of a nation that adored
etiquette and the preceding quarrel will be looked upon as an
interesting episode in a difficult period of history rather than as an
ecclesiastical scandal needlessly resuscitated by the historian, for
the purpose of opening old sores. Later on it will be seen that when
the archbishop of Rouen had relinquished his pretension, de Queylus
returned in 1668 as Laval's appointed vicar general at Montreal, and
the Sulpicians had no greater friend than the fighting bishop.
The same remarks could apply to the struggles that had been going on in
Quebec between Laval and d'Argenson in the matter of social precedence.
The relations of the church to the state had not been clearly
defined in a new country, primarily established for the promotion of
Christianity, and it would still take some time to straighten them out.
On September 11th of this year d'Argenson was formally succeeded in
the reins of office by the Baron du Bois d'Avaugour, arrived on August
31st, but it must not be understood that his quarrels with Laval
were the cause of this. The Vicomte's term of office, as we know,
had already been renewed for a second term, and he had sent in his
resignation more than once, urging ill health as an explanation. His
loss was, however, felt at Montreal by the Sulpicians, on whose side he
had ranged himself in the above disputes with Laval. His administration
would have been more successful if he could have been more impersonal
in such encounters.
M. d'Argenson was shortly followed to France by the founder of
Boucherville, Pierre Boucher, ex-governor of Three Rivers. He left on
October 31st on a mission as special agent to promote the recognition
of the need of national help from France, if Canada was to remain a
white man's land. He was sustained by the new governor, d'Avaugour, and
by d'Argenson, now in France; with what success we shall hear.
[Illustration: SEAL OF THE BOUCHERVILLE FAMILY]
1662
The parish register of Montreal has the following sad entry:
"1662-February 6. Le Sieur Lambert Closse, sergeant-major de la
garnison; Simon Le Roy, Jean Lecompte et Louis Brisson,[89] tué par les
Iroquois."
On this date, February 6th, the brave Lambert Closse met his death at
the hands of those he had so often withstood. The place of the combat
was somewhere near the corner of Craig Street and St. Lambert Hill. A
tablet placed by the Antiquarian Society erected on the south corner
of St. Lambert Hill and St. James Street, near the site of his house,
reads: "Near to this place Raphael Lambert Closse, first town major
of Ville Marie, fell bravely defending some colonists attacked by
Iroquois, 6th February, 1662. In his honour St. Lambert's Hill received
its name."
His biographer, Dollier de Casson, says he died "as a good soldier of
Christ and the king." He was one of those chivalrous knights who looked
upon the Montreal venture as a holy crusade against the infidels, and
death to him was victory. "Gentlemen," he once explained, "I am not
come here, except to die for God in the service of arms. If I did not
believe I should die so, I should leave this land and go to fight
against the Turk so as not to be deprived of this glory." He left
behind his young widow of nineteen years, Elizabeth Moyen, and a child,
Jeanne Cécile Closse, now two years old. Some colonists, being fallen
upon in the fields by the Iroquois, Lambert ran, as was his wont, to
their assistance. He would have saved them had he not been basely
deserted by a cowardly Fleming, his serving man. The historian of the
"Relations" for 1662 says, "He has justly merited the praise of having
saved Montreal by his arms and his reputation."
On May 6, 1662, Picoté de Bélestre signalized that Montreal had still
brave men to follow in his footsteps by the brilliant defense of the
Fort Ste. Marie. This redoubt on the east, with the corresponding
outlying one, on the west, of St. Gabriel, was a most valuable
fortress, without which, as a writer has remarked, Montreal "would have
been snuffed like a penny dip."
The Fort Ste. Marie was opposite the little rapid, down the harbour,
still known as Ste. Marie's Current, and was placed among some fifty
acres which had been cleared and cultivated in prehistoric days by the
Indians. The site of the above event is recorded by a tablet on the
corner of Campeau and Lagauchetière streets: "Here Trudeau, Roulier and
Langevin-Lacroix resisted fifty Iroquois." The three men were returning
to the habitation after their day's work in the fields, when suddenly
one of them cried: "To arms! The enemy is upon us!" At the same moment
a large party of Iroquois, who had been lurking here all day, rose and
fired. Each Frenchman seized his musket and fled to a hole nearby,
called "the redoubt." This they held stoutly till rescued by Bélestre,
the commandant of Ste. Marie. After a brisk fight the enemy finally
retired to the woods.
Apart from these alarms from the Iroquois, a new danger to life had
arisen from the drunken fits of the Indian allies. On the night of June
23-24 Michel Louvard dit Desjardins had been slain before his door in
Montreal by a savage, "Wolf." This produced the following ordinance
from de Maisonneuve on June 24th:
"In consequence of the murder committed last night on the person
of one named Desjardins by drunken savages, caused by the sale of
intoxicating liquors, notwithstanding previous prohibitions given both
by the Baron du Bois d'Avaugour, lieutenant general of His Majesty, and
Mgr. the Bishop of Petrea, vicar apostolic; after having considered,
in consequence of the sales of these drinks, the dangers of a general
massacre of the inhabitants by the savages, for which there are weighty
presumptions, having regard to the ordinary insolences of these latter,
and considering, besides, the ordinary crimes committed on this subject
by the French, of which we shall shortly inform the Baron d'Avaugour
and the Bishop of Petrea, so that there shall be established good order
on the subject of the sale of liquors, as well as for the good of the
inhabitants and for the savages; we, while awaiting this order by
virtue of the power we have received from His Majesty, have prohibited
and do now prohibit all kinds of persons, of whatsoever quality and
condition, from selling, giving or trading intoxicating drinks to the
savages, under such pains and punishments as we shall judge proper to
inflict, to procure the service of God and the good of this habitation."
This looks but just and wise; but it was also bold, seeing that
the prohibition of the sale of liquor was at that moment a burning
question at Quebec. It was especially bold, seeing that Maisonneuve
adroitly challenged the governor general to stand by his own previous
legislation, which he was now tacitly neglecting to enforce. It will
be seen that de Maisonneuve made reference to powers "we have received
from the king." Shortly after the publication of this ordinance the
Baron d'Avaugour visited Montreal and he flatly doubted the right to
introduce these words, especially as he had lately taken the stand of
permitting liquor traffic with the Indians. As the governor of Montreal
had been used slightingly and jealously of late by the governor
general, he did not show him his documentary authority, although the
reader will remember that the royal edict of March 7, 1657, warranted
the words.
[Illustration: SIGNATURES TO MARRIAGE CONTRACT OF LAMBERT CLOSSE]
KEY TO SIGNATURES ON OPPOSITE PAGE
_Paul de Chomedey_ _L. Closse_
_Issabelle Moyen_
_Paul Ragueneau_ _Jeanne Mance_
_Claude Pijart_ _Marie Moyen_
_François le Mercier_
_François Duperon_
_Marin Jannot_ _Jacques Vautié_
_P. Gadoys_ _N. G._ (_Nicolas Gadois_)
_R. Le Cavelier_ _Jehan Gervaise_
_Nicolas hubert_ _Marguerite_
_Gilbert barbier_ _Landreau_
_Jacques picot_ _Catherine primoit_
_Maturine Godé_ _Caterine de la vaux_
_Janne Lemoine_ _Chartier_
This marriage contract between Lambert Closse and Elizabeth Moyen must
have been signed by Jean de St. Père, the first notary of Montreal,
but his signature appears to have faded. The flourishes or _paraphes_
at the end of the names were customary at the period to insure against
imitation.
This is now the place to introduce the famous quarrels about the
liquor trade, which were of passionate interest in New France in the
seventeenth century.
It is claimed by the French that the English were the first to
introduce the liquor curse to the natives, in payment for furs. When
the French returned to Quebec the traders followed suit in spite of the
prohibitions of Champlain, Montmagny, d'Ailleboust, de Maisonneuve, de
Queylus and Laval.
The letters of the Jesuit missionaries and the contemporary
memorialists reveal a shameful story of vice, mingled with that of
the establishment of a Christian civilization. Drink made the savages
and the Christian neophytes yield to the most deplorable depths of
immorality and barbarous brutality. The delights of conviviality gave
way to disgusting debaucheries, quarrels and bloody fights. Fathers
slaughtered their children; husbands, their wives; and the women became
veritable furies. Children, boys and girls, were all demoralized. After
a night's carouse the cabins of the Indians were a gruesome sight,
heartbreaking to those responsible for the morality of the country.
The good nuns were shocked at naked men and women running amuck in the
streets of Quebec, clearing all before them at the point of the sword.
Notwithstanding prohibitions and ordinances, the scenes of carouses and
of carnage continued, because the minority, the traders, maintained
the right as necessary for trade alliances with the natives, asserting
that they were not responsible for the abuse. On his arrival Laval
fought the custom fiercely and finally found himself forced, on May 6,
1660, to fulminate the terrors of the church's excommunication "ipso
facto" against the traffickers, and in this he was supported by the
Jesuit missionaries. This had a decided effect, backed up by the severe
sanctions, even those of death, promulgated by the secular arm of the
state, represented by the Baron d'Avaugour.
An unfortunate incident, trivial in itself, destroyed this harmony. It
came from the characteristic inflexibility of the soldier governor. He
had all the qualities of a soldier who, having made up his mind, is
immovable, but he had the defects of these same qualities. What in a
good cause would have been constancy in maintaining a point of honour
became pigheadedness and impracticability in another. A woman of Quebec
had been taken, selling a bottle of wine to the Indians. Her friends
and relatives interceded for her to the priest, Father Lalemant, who
in turn approached the governor. The governor must have been in a bad
humour and not very philosophical, for he did not distinguish between
clemency and justice, between a general command and an extenuating
circumstance, or legitimate exemption. It was the priest's part to
urge clemency, the governor's to exercise justice. Father Lalemant
was answered brusquely: "Since the selling of _eau de vie_ is not
punishable for this woman, it shall not be so for anyone"--the answer
of the man of the sword and not of the lawyer or statesman. Soon the
word went around that the governor tolerated the liquor traffic. The
obstinate and headstrong soldier would not retract his hasty words and
disorders began again. The governor was inactive and shut his eyes,
but Laval levelled his threats again at the traders, who now openly
revolted, saying they would not be dictated to by bishop, priest,
preacher or confessor, since the viceroy was on their side.
It was under these circumstances that de Maisonneuve issued his
ordinance forbidding at Montreal what was known to be permitted at
Quebec. Hence the passage of arms between the two governors as
described. Maisonneuve was supported by the clergy of Montreal. Affairs
went from bad to worse at Quebec and on August 12, 1662, the vicar
apostolic went to France to place the liquor situation before the king.
Thither also went the secretary of the Baron d'Avaugour, Péronne de
Mazé, to justify his master and the traders.
Charge and countercharge, and recriminations, exercised the French
court. The bishop and the Jesuits were accused of too much severity and
clericalism, the governor and traders of too much laxity and avarice.
The problem of the relations of church and state had still to be worked
out in New France. In the meantime the bishop won; the Sorbonne in
1662 had justified his action; the liquor traffic was forbidden and
d'Avaugour was to be recalled. When Laval returned next year, the new
governor, de Mésy, accompanied him, the man of his own choice--an
unfortunate one as we shall see.
The month following, September, 1662, de Maisonneuve wished to go
to France, his object being to secure troops and to arrange for the
transfer of the seigneurship of the island from the nearly moribund
Company of Montreal to the Seminary of St. Sulpice. Before leaving he
appointed the town major, Zacharie Dupuis to take his place and an
ordinance to that effect was put up at the door of the parish church
dated September 10, 1662. On September 16th he started with Jeanne
Mance and the Abbé Souart, conducted by M. Jacques Leber. When at
Quebec d'Avaugour forbade Maisonneuve to depart on the ground that he
was needed in Montreal to quell the sedition that had arisen there in
July in reference to the establishment of a storehouse by the Company
of One Hundred Associates. This was but a pretext. Maisonneuve,
however, consented to return. Mademoiselle Mance set sail alone on
September 20th.
On his return to Montreal Maisonneuve busied himself in promoting
agriculture. There were four classes now living at Montreal:
The "habitants," or settlers, who took up the lands and were
self-supporting, these alone having the rights of trading in peltry;
the soldiers of the garrison; hired workers by contract for a definite
time; and day labourers.
By an ordinance of November 4, 1662, Maisonneuve gave permission to
soldiers and hired workers to cultivate four arpents on the seigneurs'
domain, till four others equally cultivated were given them elsewhere.
As a further inducement, those taking up land would be granted peltry
privileges like the habitants. Sixty-three responded to this before the
end of the year.
FOOTNOTES:
[88] Moffatt's island, five-eighths of a mile from the south shore, now
the wharf terminus of the Champlain branch of the Grand Trunk Railway.
[89] Two of these were "travailleurs ou volontaires," or day labourers.
In his ordinance of November 4, 1662, Maisonneuve showed no favour
to these who, for the most part, were rather a charge on the young
colony than a benefit. At Three Rivers they early became a considerable
nuisance. In 1653, on January 14, Pierre Boucher, the local governor,
ordered them to become habitants, or servants of habitants, and on
March 2, 1668, he made a new ordinance conceived in these terms: "On
the advice which has been given us that there are still labourers who
are neither habitants, nor servants of habitants, and who live under
the name of 'volontaires' (free workers), we forbid them to take more
than twenty sous a day and fifteen _livres_ a month with their food,
under penalty of prison and of the cat-o'-nine tails (fouet) at the
hands of the hangman, and it is forbidden them to trade any peltry
with the savages." At Montreal at this date the labourers were not
so troublesome, but out of them later developed many of the restless
"coureurs de bois."